In re Tyrone A. Miller On Habeas Corpus
14 Cal. App. 5th 960
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Defendant Tyrone A. Miller was convicted in 2002 of first degree felony murder and second degree robbery, as an aider and abettor, with a robbery-murder special circumstance, resulting in life without parole.
- The murder was committed by Tate, not Miller, who acted as spotter and facilitator; gun was supplied by Patton, not Miller.
- Tate killed Franco during a follow-home robbery after snatching Saravia's purse; Mrs. Saravia and Franco were bank customers who withdrew $7,500 for a car purchase.
- The jury found the special circumstance under §190.2(a)(17)(A) true and Miller received life without parole plus a firearm enhancement; other counts were stayed.
- In 2016 Miller filed a habeas petition asserting Banks and Clark required resentencing; the superior court denied, then this court granted relief and vacated the special circumstance finding.
- The court remanded to resentence Miller consistent with its opinion, holding Banks and Clark govern the analysis of major participation and reckless indifference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Banks and Clark require vacating the special circumstance | Miller: Banks/Clark show insufficiency for recklessness. | Patton: Banks/Clark apply; otherwise retroactivity concerns control. | Banks/Clark govern; special circumstance vacated |
| Whether the evidence supports major participation and reckless indifference | Evidence shows Miller masterminded plan and profited; may be major participant. | No present at scene; lacked awareness gun would be used; not reckless. | Evidence insufficient for reckless indifference; vacate |
| Procedural bar arguments raised by the Attorney General | Banks/Clark retroactivity and Waltreus do not bar relief. | Claims previously rejected; Lindley-like constraints apply. | Due process requires relief; procedural bars do not apply |
| Whether the decision is retroactive under Waltreus and Mutch | Banks/Clark clarified statutes; not new law; retroactivity not required. | Old rulings preclude relief. | Banks/Clark constitute a retroactive-like clarification; relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (defines major participant and reckless indifference for §190.2(d))
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (expands on reckless indifference and major participation in 190.2(d))
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1982) (limits death penalty for non-killer accomplice)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (upholds death sentence based on major participation and reckless indifference)
- Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225 (U.S. 2001) (due process requires correct application of elements under the law)
- In re Waltreus, 62 Cal.2d 218 (Cal. 1965) (retroactivity framework for new interpretations of law)
- In re Reno, 55 Cal.4th 428 (Cal. 2012) (Waltreus-like rule on re-litigation of previously raised claims)
- Mutch, 4 Cal.3d 389 (Cal. 1971) (rejects strict finality to bar habeas when law changes interpretation)
- Daniels, 71 Cal.2d 1119 (Cal. 1969) ( Daniels clarified scope of kidnapping statute)